Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Juvenile Justice Center topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Midland County tables proposed expansion of juvenile detention center after cost and procurement questions
Summary
County officials debated a proposed amendment to Trainer Inc.'s design contract to expand a planned juvenile detention center from 24 to 40 beds; commissioners said they needed more detail on scope, estimates and whether to rebid the work, and tabled the amendment for further review.
County officials on May 19 discussed a proposed amendment to Trainer Inc.'s professional services agreement that would change the planned Juvenile Justice Center from a 24-bed design to a 40-bed facility by adding a 16-bed pod. The amendment would increase design fees to reflect the larger scope; staff and the design team said it could be cheaper to build the larger footprint now than to expand later.
"The plan for our Juvenile Justice Center was originally for 24 beds," the design representative said, describing the change to add a pod of 16 beds to reach a 40-bed configuration. County staff explained the project is under a construction-manager-at-risk (CMAR) contract and that the RFQ/CMAR process produces phased estimates rather than a sealed bid.
County staff cited an estimate that grew as the design evolved: "by adding the pod and adding the 16 beds ... it brought that total up to the 41,000,000," a staff speaker said. Commissioners pressed for detail on what had changed in scope, whether the added work required reopening procurement, and whether the estimate fell within procurement thresholds that would trigger rebidding.
One commissioner asked whether the county should return to competitive procurement for construction or for this design amendment; staff replied the current arrangement used RFQs for design and a CMAR approach for construction, and that the contract includes periodic cost estimates as design progresses. Commissioners also asked whether the cost change would exceed the county's 25% threshold for re-solicitation; staff and counsel said they believed the RFQ/CMAR structure made the typical bid threshold rules inapplicable but agreed to examine the question.
Because several commissioners and two members of staff requested additional time to review the scope and the estimates, the court tabled the Trainer Inc. amendment to allow staff and counsel to provide more documentation, including the scope previously issued, the CMAR estimates and any procurement implications. No formal vote on the amendment was taken before tabling. The item will return to the court after staff compiles the requested materials.
